You mean aside from the Klingons and Romulans using cloaked ships while the Federation has none? ... As presented, there was zero common sense or wisdom to it

Maybe if you're a warmonger.

No warmongering. Just the opposite in fact as history has shown us that the biggest invite to war is one side feeling the risk is disproportionately small in relation to the percieved reward. Which is partly what the Romulan Commander and Spock were both speaking to in the episode "Balance of Terror."

I disagree. What was it that motivated the Pegasus experiments?

Some guys just wanting to violate a treaty ...

No, that's an unfortunately shallow interpretation that I'm sure a great many writers would find dispiriting (especially from a fanbase that was once known for it's uncommon sophistication and ability to handle relatively complex storytelling).

They both violated the Neutral Zone and came close to provoking war. It's a bit of a culture clash because to the Romulans "Balance of Terror" was apparently the standard thing to do (test the waters) whereas to the Feds it's barbaric.

I would politely suggest that perhaps you should review both episodes and then review your statement for correctness.

I'm not throwing out what BOT said, I'm clarifying it.

Respectfully, your "clarification" is based on what?

"Ockham's razor" states the hypothesis with fewest assumptions should be chosen. Everyone of your response has been based on assumption while my central thesis has not, therfore, I would humbly assert mine is in superior position.

What does the Federation not being a military dictatorship have to do with anything?

That talk about how the TNG Feds not being as militant as the 20th century.

Not true. Many examples of the TNG era being just as militant as the TOS era (plus an extra dash of smug haughtiness and hypocrisy added to taste).

No, the opposite is a Polity that tries to avert major wars that would kill billions when there are other options that don't leave them crippled.

Again, we know from history the tragic irony of war coming about precisly because oneside attempted to avert conflict through appeasement, and when that policy fails it usually comes with a price tag many times more than it would have been if situations had been delt with more succinctly.

Just look at the situations of Iran and North Korea for modern examples.

Gary7 wrote:

Logic is all about scope. When a policy is made, in one scope it may not appear logical while in another it may appear so.

Please demonstrate where what you say is in conflict with what I have said and how it fits with the claim "Diplomacy is not rooted in logic." All you appear to say is one man's logic may not be someone else's yet concedes there is a logic on both sides.

Pick a side and stick with it.

Please illustrate where I have flip-flopped.

In one respect it doesn't make logical sense for the Federation to turn away from a tactical advantage. DS9 demonstrated the need to use it, and a sensible policy made it possible. ... And screw the Romulans if they get offended by a superior cloaking device in Federation hands (transphasic cloak is like having an atomic bomb in 1945).

So how does this go against or even apply to what I've said?

All of what you say occurs after the time of "Pegasus." The fact that exceptions were negotiated after the episode only furthers my point that in and of itself the Federation's ban on cloaking technology was short-sighted and ill-reasoned in the first place.

If everybody is roaming about Federation space with cloaking devices... well, you just can't "traffic control" the place.

R. Star wrote:

^

What are you two even arguing about at this point?

Perhaps this little tutorial will help explain things.

bullethead wrote:

Why is having a contingency in place for dealing with people who overtly stated their intent to take over the rest of the galaxy and impose their system of beliefs on people bad?

It's not.

For that matter, why does supporting pragmatism equal jingoism and facism?